dos.dos “Relatedness” Once the Seen By the Historic Semantics

dos.dos “Relatedness” Once the Seen By the Historic Semantics

There is no doubt, as well as – and especially – certainly one of masters, that our rational code is extremely organized. There are a great number of relationships between the unmarried words out of a code together with definitions of these terminology, respectively. Certainly linguists, such connections are known as “semantic connections”, “sense affairs” otherwise “lexical affairs”. This type of semantic relations shall be analysed and you will described for area, along with next, the initial of them ones relations will be exhibited.

To help you give an initial, vital dysfunction of your advanced, it must be said that you can find research projects on this situation. Yet not, it report can only are some of them. Books which had been made use of is available less than part half a dozen, “Set of Works Cited”. Enterprise delimitations just have become made so far as outline try alarmed. Since this papers is just an incredibly quick bit of browse, brand new people provides confined by themselves not to get into excessively detail, but rather you will need to promote a beneficial questionnaire of your own question.

2.step 1 Polysemy And you may Homonymy

Polysemy can be described as “a term included in semantic studies to refer to help you an effective lexical goods that has a range of other significance” (Crystal 1997, 297). Crystal provides because the analogy getting polysemy the brand new lexical goods “plain”, which includes various meanings “clear”, “unadorned”, “obvious”, etcetera.(ibid. Crystal).

Today, the situation you to arises having linguists is precisely how to distinguish polysemy from a special ambiguity, out-of homonymy. Crystal represent homonymy because the “an expression included in semantic studies to mention to [a couple of] lexical items which [happen to] have a similar form, but differ from inside the definition” (Amazingly 1997, 185). Crystal’s instances listed here are “bear” and “ear”. “Bear” can describe a pet or have the meaning away from “to take”, “ear” can be relate to you or perhaps to corn (ibid. Crystal).

In these examples, homonymy discusses each other verbal and you can created versions, but it’s as well as likely that the newest identity out-of a few lexemes is actually just one average, in which particular case linguists manage speak of partial homonymy or heteronymy (ibid. Crystal). One could separate 2 kinds of partial homonymy:

– Homography: two lexical items have the same authored function, however, disagree for the pronunciation (an example are definitely the two lexical bits of “lead”, you to definitely love ru pÅ™ihlásit obvious [li:d] and you will definition “to be in front”, another noticable [led] and you can determining another sort of metal). – Homophony: a few lexical situations have a similar enunciation, however, disagree from inside the spelling

(age.g. the 2 lexical issues “led” and you can “lead”, each of that are noticable [led], the initial being the prior stressful out of “to lead”, the second once more identifying a special brand of steel).

two types From Ambiguity

Therefore, polysemy and you may homonymy might be recognized from both from the current otherwise shed relatedness involving the significance and that’s assigned to at least one phonological mode. What’s the center of matter, is the question to what the amount this idea out of “relatedness” will be given. Put differently: how do “relatedness” become laid out? If a very clear and direct definition was provided, the whole state could well be set, to own then your technology away from phonological versions whose relatedness can be turned out could be entitled “homonymy”, whoever relatedness can not be turned out could well be titled “polysemy”. Yet not, because the happens many times in neuro-scientific semantics, one cannot offer a definite and you may indisputable concept of the word “relatedness”. There are 2 very first solutions to this dilemma, one to supplied by historic semantics, additional because of the synchronic semantics.

Historic semantics interprets the notion “relatedness” mostly naturally which talks out of polysemy in the event that an excellent lexeme that have additional definitions contains a comparable etymological sources (Kastovsky 1982, 121). Examples are “game” into two definitions “wild animals” and you can “playful interest” otherwise “funny” meaning possibly “strange” otherwise “amusing”. One another advice let you know lexemes whoever some other significance have a similar etymological roots and tend to be ergo interpreted just like the polysemy because of the historical semantics.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *